Solidifying The Power Of The Judicial Branch

AP US/VA History Unit 3 Solidifying the Power of the Judicial Branch Supreme Court Decisions

Directions: Read the information about your assigned Supreme Court Case. Pause after each section to discuss the critical thinking questions with your group. When you have finished reading and discussing, you will create a skit that reenacts the decision and present it to the class.

Case: McCulloch vs. Maryland, 1819

Background In 1818, Maryland passed a law that imposed a tax on all banks operating in, but not chartered (created) by, the state of Maryland. The Baltimore branch of the Bank of the United States refused to pay the tax, sparking this lawsuit. The lawsuit was about more than just the right of Maryland to tax the Bank of the United States. The lawsuit also challenged the constitutionality of a national bank.

Stop here and answer these questions.  Why would the state of Maryland want to tax the Bank of the United States?  Why would some people believe that Congress did not have the right to create a national bank?

Decision In a 7-0 decision, Chief Justice John Marshall and the Supreme Court acknowledged the constitutional principle of Congress' “implied powers.” It determined that Congress had not only the powers expressly given to it by the Constitution but also all authority “appropriate” to carry out such powers.

In this specific case the court held that Congress had the power to incorporate a national bank, despite the Constitution's silence on both the creation of corporations and the chartering of banks. It was concluded that since a national bank would facilitate the accomplishment of authority expressly given to the federal government, such as the collection of taxes and the maintenance of armed forces, Congress had a choice of how it would accomplish these tasks.

Stop here and answer these questions.  What tasks of Congress would be helped by having a national bank?  Why might it be important for Congress to have “implied” powers in addition to the “express” powers given to it in the Constitution?  What implied powers does the government have in today’s society? AP US/VA History Unit 3 Solidifying the Power of the Judicial Branch Supreme Court Decisions

Case: Dartmouth College vs. Woodward, 1819

Background Dartmouth College in New Hampshire was founded as a private college in 1769. It was run by a board of trustees. In 1816 a conflict between the school’s president and the board of trustees resulted in the New Hampshire legislature trying to make Dartmouth into a public institution. Without the consent of the current board of trustees, the state legislature changed the name of the college to Dartmouth University, enlarged the size of the board of trustees, and made all acts of the board subject to veto (rejection) by government-appointed overseers. The old board of trustees sued the state of New Hampshire in 1817.

Stop here and answer these questions.  What circumstance led the state legislature to take control of Dartmouth College?  Do you think it was fair for the state to take control?

Decision At first a state court ruled in favor of the state, saying that since the college served the public good, it was a public corporation. However, the board of trustees appealed to the Supreme Court. Chief Justice John Marshall and the Supreme Court overturned the state ruling. They ruled that the college was a private corporation and therefore the state could not interfere with or change its charter without permission.

The ruling was significant because it applied to businesses as well as universities and colleges. It also prevented state governments from interfering with and influencing private education.

Stop here and answer these questions.  Why would it be important to create a separation between private education and state government?  How might this decision apply to a business, like Apple or Microsoft? AP US/VA History Unit 3 Solidifying the Power of the Judicial Branch Supreme Court Decisions

Case: Marbury vs. Madison, 1803

Background When John Adams lost the presidential race in 1800, he knew that the Federalist Party was in danger of losing its power in the government. To try to maintain Federalist power in the judiciary branch, he created new judgeships using the Judiciary Act of 1801 and then appointed Federalist judges to the newly created positions. Not all of the commissions were handed out before Thomas Jefferson (a Republican) took office and Jefferson ordered his secretary of state, James Madison, not to deliver them. One of the judges who did not receive his commission, William Marbury, sued directly to the Supreme Court to try to force Madison to deliver it.

A lot of tension surrounded the case because Jefferson was a Republican and Marshall was a Federalist. Jefferson had forbidden Madison to deliver the commission even if the Supreme Court ordered him to do so.

Stop here and answer these questions.  Why did John Adams try to create so many new judgeships?  Why might a confrontation between Jefferson and Marshall be harmful to the United States?

Decision Although Chief Justice Marshall ruled that it was wrong for Madison not to have delivered the commission, he also ruled that the part of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that allowed Marbury to sue directly to the Supreme Court was unconstitutional, so the entire case should be thrown out. The section of the Judiciary Act was unconstitutional because it gave additional powers to the Supreme Court that were not in Article III of the Constitution.

Marshall’s decision avoided a confrontation between Republicans and Federalists, but more importantly it established the concept of judicial review. Judicial review held that the Supreme Court has the power to evaluate laws passed by Congress to see if they are Constitutional or not. Although this case is an example of “negative” judicial review, the concept has also been used in “positive” ways, upholding laws that have been challenged.

Stop here and answer these questions.  How did the power of judicial review affect the judicial branch?  What might be an example of “positive” judicial review? Solidifying the Power of the Judicial Branch Supreme Court Decisions

Case: Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824

Background The United States was eager to industrialize at the turn of the 19th century. To promote industrial development, the state of New York made a deal with Robert Fulton and Robert Livingston. If the two men could invent and finance a steamboat that traveled at least 4 mph, then New York would give them a monopoly on navigation and transportation on New York’s waterways. Fulton and Livingston were successful and the state kept its promise. Fulton and Livingston then sold licenses to their monopoly to other steamboat operators including Aaron Ogden, who bought a license for a waterway that connected New York and New Jersey.

In 1819, Ogden sued a man named Thomas Gibbons because he was using the same waterway without permission. Gibbons claimed that he had a right to use it from a federal license he had received. The New York state court originally ruled in Ogden’s favor.

Stop here and answer these questions.  Why would a state want to encourage industrial development?  What are some reasons that monopolies can be harmful?

Decision Chief Justice John Marshall and the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the state court. They cited Article I of the Constitution, which gave Congress the right “to regulate commerce…among the several states.” Because Congress retained this power over interstate commerce, New York did not have the right to grant monopolies. This clause of the Constitution is known as the commerce clause.

The decision ended monopolies on waterways. A secondary effect of the decision was to encourage westward expansion because there were now more options for water transportation.

Stop here and answer these questions.  Explain how this decision affected the relationship between state and national power.  How do you think this decision will apply to other forms of interstate transportation and commerce?

Solidifying the Power of the Judicial Branch Supreme Court Decisions

Case: Cherokee Nation v. the State of Georgia, 1831

Background The state of Georgia had for years coveted the land that belonged to the Cherokee nation in the northwestern portion of what makes up the state today. In 1828, the state legislature passed a series of AP US/VA History Unit 3 laws that severely restricted the freedoms and rights of Cherokees in an attempt to force them off the land. At the time John Ross was the Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation. He went to Washington, DC in early 1829 to ask Congress for support in repealing these laws. Although he found some supportive Congressmen, President Andrew Jackson was a strong supporter of Georgia’s right to the Cherokee land. In 1830, he encouraged Congress to pass the Indian Removal Act, which allowed the national government to seize Indian land east of the Mississippi River in exchange for land west of the Mississippi.

Realizing that negotiations would not work, Ross and the Cherokee Nation took their argument to the Supreme Court. The lawyer for the Cherokees asked the Supreme Court for an injunction, claiming that Georgia’s laws “go directly to annihilate the Cherokees as a political society.” He also argued that the Cherokee nation was like a foreign country and therefore should be treated as one under the Constitution.

Stop here and answer these questions.  Why would Georgia (or any other state) want the land that belonged to Native Americans?  Why did John Ross have to take his concerns to the Supreme Court?

Decision Chief Justice John Marshall and the Supreme Court ruled that the case could not be decided because the Supreme Court did not have any jurisdiction (right) to decide it. Marshall wrote that the Cherokee nation was not a foreign country, but a “domestic dependent nation.” Although the decision did nothing about Georgia’s laws, it seemed to leave open the possibility that other lawsuits would be decided in favor of the Cherokees.

Stop here and answer these questions.  What do you think that John Marshall meant by “domestic dependent nation”?  How do you think President Jackson will feel about this decision?

Solidifying the Power of the Judicial Branch Supreme Court Decisions

Case: Worcester v. the State of Georgia, 1832

Background Desire for the same land had created tension between the state of Georgia and the Cherokee nation throughout the early 19th century. Georgia had passed a series of laws restricting the freedoms of the Cherokee. One of Georgia’s laws required that all whites living on Cherokee land had to obtain a license. Permission to get the license was granted by the state. Samuel Worcester and six other white AP US/VA History Unit 3 Christian missionaries lived in the Cherokee nation, supported the rights of the Cherokee, and refused to apply for a license because they knew that their request would be denied.

The state of Georgia arrested Worcester and the others and sentenced them to four years of jail time for refusing to apply for a license. The missionaries appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the law was unconstitutional because the state of Georgia had no authority to make laws regarding the Cherokee nation.

Stop here and answer these questions.  Why did Georgia require Worcester and the other missionaries to obtain a license?  In your opinion was this a fair law?

Decision In a previous case (Cherokee Nation v. Georgia), Chief Justice John Marshall had ruled that Indian nations were “domestic dependent nations” over which the courts had no jurisdiction. In this ruling he differed from his previous opinion by ruling that the Cherokee nation was actually a “distinct community,” with its own government. This meant that “the laws of Georgia [could] have no force” within its borders. It also meant that the national government (not the states) was the only organization that could deal with the Indian nations.

Despite being a victory for the Cherokee, this ruling actually had no immediate benefits for Native Americans. President Andrew Jackson is quoted as saying, “John Marshall made his decision, now let him enforce it!” Perhaps to avoid a direct confrontation with Jackson, Marshall did not enforce the ruling and Georgia did not release Worcester and the other missionaries from jail immediately. However, the ruling served as a basis for future dealings between the United States and Native American nations.

Stop here and answer these questions.  How did Marshall view Native American nations?  Why would Marshall have wanted to avoid a confrontation with Jackson?

Solidifying the Power of the Judicial Branch Supreme Court Decisions

Skit requirements

1. Your skit must include roles for all of your group members. 2. Your skit must be no more than 5 minutes in length. 3. You must make a storyboard for your skit and turn it in at the end of class (template on back). 4. Your skit must clearly tell the class: A. What groups were involved in the case AP US/VA History Unit 3 .

B. Why the case was brought before the Supreme Court.

C. What the decision of the Court was.

D. How the decision in this case helped determine the power of the national government versus the power of the state governments. AP US/VA History Unit 3 AP US/VA History Unit 3 Solidifying the Power of the Judicial Branch Supreme Court Decisions

Case Groups Question Decision

Marbury v. Madison, 1803

Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 1819

McCulloch v. Maryland, 1819

Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824

Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 1831

Worcester v. Georgia, 1832